German GEDmatch results

[Peterski]

Interesting. Some seem to have a bit of Slavic blood. I'm going to troll the ones I know irl now. I live in a region full of Mennonites

This one has 8% Slavic in 23andMe (maybe it would translate to more or less in GEDmatch):

[note that they lived for ca. 250 years in Poland & then for ca. 200 years in Ukraine/Russia]





Probably all of them have a similar level of ca. 5-15% - on average ca. 1/10 - Slavic input.

but the towns are all named after cities in western Germany( Baden, Mannheim, New Hamburg, Luxemburg, Heidelberg etc)

They came to Poland before year 1540, stayed in Poland until ca. 1790, then moved to Russia/Ukraine, then to Canada in the 1900s.

23andMe nailed it by assigning that 8% of Eastern European exactly to Poland, Russia, Ukraine (all 3 are correct for the Mennonites).

[Germans can range] From Czech, to Scandinavian, to British, to French. More of an Empire with a common tongue than a proper nation, no offence. (Same for the French and Italians).

Have you heard about the Seipel Line? Here is an interesting article about it:

http://faculty.ce.berkeley.edu/coby/essays/seipel.htm

^^^ One interesting quote from that article:

"(...) It is apparent from the preceding discussion that only exceptionally does the Seipel Line coincide with state boundaries; more often than not, it cuts through countries, in the sense that the meaning of nationality may be different on one side of a country than on another. But it can also cut through a people, namely, the Jewish people: the Jews’ conception of themselves – whether as a nation or as a religion (or a culturally defined ethnic group) – is largely determined by geography. It is useful to remember that what motivated F. J. Neumann to undertake his pioneering study of nationhood was the uncertain national identity of the Jews in what was then Prussian Poland (where the ethnic Poles were unwavering in their Polishness, despite Bismarck’s Germanization campaign), in contrast to the Jews of Germany proper, who saw themselves – largely as a result of the Enlightenment-inspired teachings of Moses Mendelssohn – as Germans. (...)"

^^^
Funny that Jews [those who lived in the German Empire, at least] wanted so badly to be accepted as Germans, and yet Germans rejected them. On the other hand, they tried so hard to Germanize the Poles, who did not want (as we wanted to have our own empire, like we did before 1772).

But what to expect from an empire, which even had an officially approved political party called Antii-Semites [Antisemiten]?

If you check for example the results of Reichstag elections in 1907, the Anti-Semites Party won in much of Central Germany.

[rothaer]

From Czech, to Scandinavian, to British, to French. More of an Empire with a common tongue than a proper nation, no offence. (Same for the French and Italians).

So if the genetic covers the cline from one neighbor to the other then it's not a "proper nation"?

If it's referred to the spread of the cline than this is naturally bigger than the genetic spread in a smaller country, like Luxemburg. Btw. not just in Germany, France and Italy, but also on the British Isles you have notable genetic clines within not too big geographic areas. Only by quick and as recent expansions as possible you get big areas settled without notable genetic clines. But wouldn't it feel somewhat strange to out of all things connect an artificial newly settled entity, like Australia, with a "proper nation" and reject that for the natural conditions in the old world, if the country is somewhat bigger, has a numerous population and hence will represent a notable bigger spread in the natural bio-geographic cline?

Otherwise just countries with the removal of the grown bio-geographic cline and quick resettlement would be "proper nations", i. e. essentially a preceeding genocide would be a requirement.

[rothaer]

But what to expect from an empire, which even had an officially approved political party called Antii-Semites [Antisemiten]?
If you check for example the results of Reichstag elections in 1907, the Anti-Semites Party won in much of Central Germany.

To hear a country-related critizism for anti-semitism from a Pole is not impossible, of course, but somewhat unexpected.

And when referreing to anti-semitism, what then to expect from an Empire like Poland? Just curious.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

We should also keep in mind that Germany is terribly undersampled, both on Eurogenes and Global25. All the regions that should form a cline between the west and the east of the country are missing.

[Peterski]

And when referreing to anti-semitism, what then to expect from an Empire like Poland? Just curious.

Poland had the largest Jewish community in the world, according to historian Iwo Pogonowski up to 70% of the world's Jews lived here. Since the 1200s Jews enjoyed great privileges in Poland. The word "Polin" in Hebrew & in Yiddish has two meanings: "Poland" and "find a safe haven here".

There was even a saying "Clarum regnum Polonorum est coelum nobiliorum, paradisus Judaeorum, purgatorium plebeiorum et infernus rusticorum" ("Polish kingdom is heaven for the nobles, purgatory for the townsmen, paradise for the Jews, and hell for the peasants").

The last part is exaggerated, at least until the mid-1600s peasants had fine living standards.

Coming back to the Jews:

This genetic study shows that Polish Jews (Eastern AJ) were multiplying much faster than HRE Jews (Western AJ):

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article...180?login=true

Quote: "The differentiation between the Eastern and Western AJ could be attributed to more extreme population growth in the Eastern AJ (0.250 per generation) than the Western AJ (0.069 per generation)."

^^^
So living conditions for Jews in Poland were better than in the HRE allowing for a 3-4 x higher natural growth rate.

During Khmelnytsky Uprising, Polish szlachta saved thousands of Jews from the Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants.

Especially Prince Jeremi Wiśniowiecki contributed to saving a lot of Jews (and Polish townsmen and peasants as well).

[Smitty]

So if the genetic covers the cline from one neighbor to the other then it's not a "proper nation"?

If it's referred to the spread of the cline than this is naturally bigger than the genetic spread in a smaller country, like Luxemburg. Btw. not just in Germany, France and Italy, but also on the British Isles you have notable genetic clines within not too big geographic areas. Only by quick and as recent expansions as possible you get big areas settled without notable genetic clines. But wouldn't it feel somewhat strange to out of all things connect an artificial newly settled entity, like Australia, with a "proper nation" and reject that for the natural conditions in the old world, if the country is somewhat bigger, has a numerous population and hence will represent a notable bigger spread in the natural bio-geographic cline?

Otherwise just countries with the removal of the grown bio-geographic cline and quick resettlement would be "proper nations", i. e. essentially a preceeding genocide would be a requirement.

Another point, there should be a good deal of interrelatedness among Germans. Maybe not so much between north and south (I'd be interested in that), but certainly east and west, since East Germany was settled by West Germans during the Ostsiedlung. Yes, they absorbed Slavic blood and were changed to a certain degree, but they were still related, which is for me an important part of the idea of nationhood.

[Peterski]

(...)

Poland was known as a "paradise for the Jews" - so how can people claim that there was Anti-Semitism in Poland?

Not only that but the Jews in Poland were breeding fast like in an incubator (it is confirmed by genetics) as nobody was regularly killing them (which was the case in Western Europe). The "Ashkenazi demographic miracle" happened in Poland, thanks to the privileges they enjoyed here.

Without Polish help the Jews would have gone extinct (at least Ashkenazi Jews) or would be a tiny population today.

Jews should be grateful that we "incubated" them for centuries. Then since 1800s they emigrated to the U.S. & Israel.

I'm now quoting you because you thumbed up Rothaer's post.

[Scandal]

So if the genetic covers the cline from one neighbor to the other then it's not a "proper nation"?

If it's referred to the spread of the cline than this is naturally bigger than the genetic spread in a smaller country, like Luxemburg. Btw. not just in Germany, France and Italy, but also on the British Isles you have notable genetic clines within not too big geographic areas. Only by quick and as recent expansions as possible you get big areas settled without notable genetic clines. But wouldn't it feel somewhat strange to out of all things connect an artificial newly settled entity, like Australia, with a "proper nation" and reject that for the natural conditions in the old world, if the country is somewhat bigger, has a numerous population and hence will represent a notable bigger spread in the natural bio-geographic cline?

Otherwise just countries with the removal of the grown bio-geographic cline and quick resettlement would be "proper nations", i. e. essentially a preceeding genocide would be a requirement.

The concept of nation predates the concept of genetic clustering. So I think Germans are a nation with an integrity regardless of how they plot individually.

[Peterski]

To hear a country-related critizism for anti-semitism from a Pole (...)

OK so let's give voice to a Jew (it is interesting he didn't criticize Poland the same way):

Jewish historian David Solomon says that not one but many holocausts happened multiple times in Germany during German history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUlM2a2tsOM#t=3350 - from 0:55:50 to 0:57:10

"(...) The Shoah is not an isolated event. The project to exterminate the Jews of Germany happens here [pointing at the timeline of history], and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. And so people say - so why did Jews keep going back to Germany? Why did Jews keep going back? And I say - look at your own generation. Only half a century after the Holocaust, and what is the largest growing Jewish community in the world outside of Israel? It's Germany. And yet surely the lesson of this entire wall [pointing at the timeline of history] is that Jews should not be living in Germany. We hope and we pray... in the end of the day, in hundreds of years from now, I'm hoping that... well, if I'm starting to explain that more I'm gonna get further and further into problem, so I'm gonna stop, let's go back to history (...)"



^^^
It seems he is right. There was already a holocaust of Jews in Medieval Germany. The one of 1939-1945 wasn't the first one in history.

And like he said in the lecture Jews who go to Germany make a mistake because there might be another holocaust there in the future.

Now we can ask holocaust deniers - "dude, but which holocaust do you deny?" - because there were several of them, it seems.

[J. Ketch]

So if the genetic covers the cline from one neighbor to the other then it's not a "proper nation"?

I admit it's rather arbitrary, but you have to draw the line somewhere regarding homogeneity - parts of Germany have vastly different ancestral origins, and are closer to foreign nations than to people within the borders of their own nation. It's worthy of distinction from the more homogenous, natural nations with essentially the same origins.

If it's referred to the spread of the cline than this is naturally bigger than the genetic spread in a smaller country, like Luxemburg. Btw. not just in Germany, France and Italy, but also on the British Isles you have notable genetic clines within not too big geographic areas. Only by quick and as recent expansions as possible you get big areas settled without notable genetic clines.

I guess you could say that 'British people' have a notable cline, by which I assume you mean notable genetic difference, but 1. it's not nearly as big as what exists in Germany, France and Italy, and 2. I don't consider the 'British' or the United Kingdom a proper nation either, it is a recent political invention, more of a state-nation like aforesaid countries, not a true nation-state. English, Scots, Welsh and Irish are the real, ancient nations with a great deal of homogeneity.

But wouldn't it feel somewhat strange to out of all things connect an artificial newly settled entity, like Australia, with a "proper nation" and reject that for the natural conditions in the old world, if the country is somewhat bigger, has a numerous population and hence will represent a notable bigger spread in the natural bio-geographic cline?

I never claimed Australia is a proper nation in the European sense. It is a different animal altogether, another state-nation, built around an Anglo-Celtic ethnic/cultural nucleus.

Otherwise just countries with the removal of the grown bio-geographic cline and quick resettlement would be "proper nations", i. e. essentially a preceeding genocide would be a requirement.

Not necessarily, just common origins and strong overlap. I mean all of Northwest+Central-West Europe has a 'cline', and arguably most of Europe too. If the EU begins federalising and forcing everyone to speak a common language, in 100 years is it a proper nation, if Europeans start identifying as such?